Overtones of sexism aside, what he did was, at the least, rude, inconsiderate, and disrespectful.
Agreed. In interest of ending this fruitless discussion, I'll say that it was at the very least rude and inconsiderate.
I was wrong.
(230 posts) (32 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Jeremiah
MemberWell, in regards to the race/gender analogy it doesn't really matter if black males are more likely to commit crime due to socio-economic factors. No matter the underlying cause for the statistics being the way they are the risk assessment remains accurate and hence it is justified to react as such for the sake of the example. Just being kind of a prude for logic details. Anyways, in Utopia a man wouldn't have to worry about being seen as a potential predator because in Utopia other men wouldn't behave as predators and give women a good reason to be wary so everyone would win.
There is something to be said about the chasm between what should be and what is. We sometimes just have to deal with the 'what is' part and for guys that means that in certain situations we will be viewed as threat through no fault of the individual.
For example I once was leaving the theatre after a late movie alone. Because of the time it was of course dark and the parking lot had few people. As luck would have it myself and the woman walking in front of me (alone) happened to park in the same corner of the lot so I was of course going in the same direction a few paces behind her. Without thinking I reached in my pocket for the keys which made quite a noise and obviously startled her. She kinda hurried on toward her car without looking back but realizing what happened I slowed my pace and tried to hum and play with my keys a bit. Basically trying to send signals that read 'no danger'. Of course I was no threat and I could have felt bad that she felt threatened by me but the reality of the situation was that a man following you in a dark parking lot is a risk-elevated situation from a woman’s point of view and to use a cliche 'it was nothing personal' against me as an individual. Is it fair? Maybe not in the strictest sense, but it is the reality of the world we navigate at the moment and part of being a 'polite' (for lack of a better word) member of society is recognizing this fact and adjusting your actions accordingly.
Kind of avoided this whole issue for that reason. It is kind of a mountain out of a molehill event IMHO. I mean, is the issue that divides atheists really elevator etiquette? :P
Posted 1 year ago # -
...but it is the reality of the world we navigate at the moment?
I think so, because everyone has had differing experiences regarding different types of people in different situations in different locales.
But, isn't it really all about trust?
Do you trust the white guy in an elevator at 4 am? Maybe not if you are a lone female familiar with rape statistics regarding white men in elevators in that particular area at that particular time of day. Do you trust the black guy asking for money? Maybe not if you are from a place where black men are known to be a problem. Do you trust a crack whore asking you for a smoke? She may very well knife you for a cigarette, or maybe she's just jonesing for a smoke.
If you are a big guy with martial arts training, would you be less intimidated by a certain confrontation than a small wimpy guy? The woman with the .357 magnum by her side will probably feel less threatened than the woman without any defense.
I think it all boils down to past experiences and a knowledge of potential threats in the present situation.
Some of it may depend on an individuals' upbringing and social circumstances, too. For example: If some white boy grew up around all black boys, he may very well be less intimidated when confronted by a black guy asking for money.
What about the lone black kid being approached by a white skinhead? Should he feel uncomfortable?
Unfortunately, stereotyping plays a big part in the amount of threat perceived in any encounter.
Do I trust this person or not? Are you black or white? Are you a man or woman? Can you defend yourself or are you more likely to take shit?
There is a fine line between perceived threat and justified threat.
I think a lot of it depends on rather or not you trust that certain individual in that particular situation.
Is that fair? No, but that's reality.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@Eudaimonist
I wouldn't call the discussion fruitless, but that's okay.
@Justice Gustin
"The woman with the .357 magnum by her side will probably feel less threatened than the woman without any defense."
Or, as in my case, the woman with the 80-pound German Shepherd. I live near several bars in a somewhat rowdy college town, and he's a very effective deterrent.
Posted 1 year ago # -
One at a time, folks.
@ Elivent:
"No, he didn't assault, rape, or sexually harass her. Things don't have to escalate to the point of abuse before they become inappropriate. The fact that they didn't go that far, however, doesn't mean that it was okay for him to approach her in that way, in that place. By only identifying with him and assigning him solely innocent intentions, you're missing the part where not only did she have a valid reason for feeling uncomfortable, but that it was a reason he should have been able to foresee and prevent. The big problem here is that he didn't."
Spot. On.
@ Nzo:
"I fully invite you to try your hand at walking around some neighborhoods near me and pretending not to be scared for your life just for being white and in the wrong place."[emphasis mine]
Did I not just get done explaining that socio-economic groups don't often mix and that black people are disproportionately likely to be poor? I'll try again: Street crime committed by young, black men is largely perpetrated against other young, black men, because they are peers and therefore accessible targets. Middle-class white guys don't wander around Compton because they don't live there.
"Nobody outside the area I live really gets it, but there's nothing racist or prejudiced about it. It's a realistic risk assessment that a black person wouldn't think twice about."[emphasis mine]
So you freely admit that your situation is unusual and not globally applicable by any means? There we go then.
@ Eudamonist:
You've obviously never lived in some of the places where this is a real and present danger. In fact, I'd wager that people who live in these areas</strong. have a much more realistic risk assessment than Watson did to begin with.[emphasis mine]
Orly? In Leeds, I've lived in Headingly, Hyde Park and Chapeltown. In London I've lived in Tottenham and Haringey (you know, where that Mosque is). In Bristol, I've lived in St. Pauls. Google incidents involving police cars getting carjacked at gunpoint, and you might find stories about Chapeltown.
And yes, people who live in these areas probably have fairly well developed street smarts, but once again you're not talking about something globally applicable - you're talking about isolated population centres. Rape happens everywhere, globally, to all kinds of women, regardless of who, where, or what they are.
At this point I'm going to suggest you brew a pot of coffee, sit yourself down and have a read of Liss McEwan's blog: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html
"Rape culture is the objectification of women, which is part of a dehumanizing process that renders consent irrelevant. Rape culture is treating women's bodies like public property. Rape culture is street harassment and groping on public transportation and equating raped women's bodies to a man walking around with valuables hanging out of his pockets. Rape culture is most men being so far removed from the threat of rape that invoking property theft is evidently the closest thing many of them can imagine to being forcibly subjected to a sexual assault."
Your equating rape with mugging makes that very relevant in my mind.
Posted 1 year ago # -
FO
MemberOk, I won't answer all, because many are doing a great job already.
@Ursa: fear of being righteously shredded by feminists is exactly why I added the disclaimer right below my statement. ^_^
I largely agree with elivent, Men do the same, and both men and woman often chose the way they dress to compete with those of the same sexual inclination.
My experience is also that women compete more on sheer looks while men compete more on social dominance.@Justice Gustin
I'd never trust a black guy asking for Change... ^_^http://www.theonion.com/articles/black-guy-asks-nation-for-change,2409/
Posted 1 year ago # -
blotonthelandscape
Member@FO LOL!
re. the change in topic from gender to race, i'll fully agree that as a white male in South Africa 10 years ago, I felt threatened when a poor black person tried to engage in conversaion in a lonely place, because whites weren't particularly well-liked by blacks, for obvious reasons, and you were in danger based on the colour of your skin, and the zulu's are known to shoot first and ask questions later. That's not even getting into the threat of being turned into muti...
HOWEVER, back to analogising, IF you were a black person who felt that the stereotypical behaviour was damaging to society, and you were aware of the stereotype, you WOULD NOT approach a white boy in the street and try to strike up a conversation. You WOULD NOT perpetuate the signals that cause that fear response in white people. You can't argue that the fears are unfounded, because they are based on inference from the environment and history, and you can't argue that the behaviour is progressive, because that would be circular (until progress is made, the fear response will persist). Hence the behaviour is inappropriate.
This is analogous to Watsons case. Until men stop being dicks, and until women accept that men aren't dicks, men must stop sending dickish signals.
Posted 1 year ago # -
zach
MemberWOW this thread exploded. On account of race being added to the mix, I believe.
The first eleven or twelve years of my life I grew up in a low-income suburb in Western NC. My experiences with African-Americans tended to be negative—I was intimidated by the huge black suburbans with subwoofers blaring, a couple of aggressive kids down the street (how I perceived it as a kid), and this one time when I was in the car with my dad and he stopped because this young black guy in a red sports coup ahead suddenly stopped his vehicle in the middle of the road, got out, and pulled his girlfriend from the other side and screamed in her face. My dad stopped in the interest of her safety and the guy screamed profanities in his faith and threatened to beat him.
Although I have had several black friends over my life, I still find black men more intimidating than white men. Taking the time to talk to black strangers has kind of worn off my childhood impressions significantly. In fact, I only have a savings account still intact right now because of some great financial advice, and friendship, I got from one such interaction. (I guess right now it's turned more in awe than anything else. I find Africans to be among the most beautiful people on earth. Honestly, that's not an exaggeration.)
Posted 1 year ago # -
zach
Member@FO—I had a friend who got into "pickup" theory, as it were, and I did work off of some of the material when I was getting over social-phobias. However, I've never been interested in the routine-like ideas of Mystery or any of those other guys. Maybe he does promote using a "time-constraint" in his stuff, but I don't think I got it from him. I experimented around with different ideas of my own and I got to say that the idea of "time constraint" is pretty effective for putting any stranger at ease. I think that giving people a sense that you will take off at any moment makes it easier for them to converse with you. I'm not sure why, but at least at first people are always more interested in talking if you seem like you're on your way out. Maybe it makes us feel better, like when your friend tells you ten times he's leaving but can't seem to get away from your conversation.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mark the Pilgrim
MemberHa, the race analogies are terrible.
@blotonthelandscape:
"HOWEVER, back to analogising, IF you were a black person who felt that the stereotypical behaviour was damaging to society, and you were aware of the stereotype, you WOULD NOT approach a white boy in the street and try to strike up a conversation. You WOULD NOT perpetuate the signals that cause that fear response in white people. You can't argue that the fears are unfounded, because they are based on inference from the environment and history, and you can't argue that the behaviour is progressive, because that would be circular (until progress is made, the fear response will persist). Hence the behaviour is inappropriate."
I'm a black male who has happened to strike up conversations with white people with whom I was not familiar with. Again, it's about context and how you do it. I don't think anyone should approach anyone aggressively or in a creepy manner regardless of their race, class, etc, so if I merely desire to speak to someone, I shouldn't think, "oh shit, I'm black! I better not perpetuate any negative stereotypes by being nice to someone!". I should not take my blackness into account when talking to anyone - that's just stupid. What I should be conscious of, is not my race (which I can't change), but rather the manner in which I approach anyone.
There's a massive difference between following a lone woman into an elevator at 4am and just talking to someone who happens to be the opposite race. Are you essentially saying that a black person should take responsibility for how a white person perceives them?
The next time I travel to a predominantly white area, should I regard any white person who approaches me as a potential lyncher or Steven Lawrence-esque racist?? I mean, "you can't argue that the fears are unfounded, because they are based on inference from the environment and history"...
It's all about context.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Jabster
Member@Custy/Mark P
I think the argument being made (Euda can fell free to correct me) was that on it's own someone being apprehensive if a black person approached them doesn't automatically mean that the black person has to change their behaviour ... I think that possibly what I could have read from some of the posts here i.e. women apprehensive at male behaviour, therefore men must change. We all agree that's it's a bit more complicated than that and to me that's what Euda was pointing out.
@Zach
I had a friend whose chat line can best be described as numbers ... ask enough women if that want to sleep with you and you going to get a hit.
Posted 1 year ago # -
blotonthelandscape
Member@M the P: Yeah, totally about context, which is why I clarified the social and political situation in SA 10 years ago, where I should legitimitely fear for my life in certain areas if approached by an unfamiliar black person. Sorry if that didn't come across strongly enough. In that context, I do believe that a sensible white person would be afraid, and I believe that a self-aware black man who doesn't want to perpetuate fear would take caution in his approach. As I now live in the South of England, it's a completely different story. I now pay more attention to the type of clothes a person wears than the colour of their skin. Perhaps culture would be a better thing to stereotype than race? (In SA, the Zulu people are recognised for their aggression and willingness to kill, whereas the Xhosa are more peaceful and tolerant).
I think (my) race is a good analogy to this issue in feminism, because it has a history that is relevant across genders, and I do think that they illustrate the point. Elevator man lives in a world where he is potentially a threat to a woman, and should be self-aware and careful in his approach to women.
This issue extends beyond just approaching women in elevators for casual sex. Greg Laden talks about walking in the same direction as a women late at night down a lonely street. You may not even intend to strike up a conversation with her, but you still cross the street, because while you are behind her, near her, in front of her, you are "following" her, and are a potential threat to her.
Posted 1 year ago # -
That's the exact analogy I used the other day to my better half: If I'm walking behind a woman and there aren't many people around, I cross over and walk on the other side of the road so that it's clear I'm not a threat. I know it's not my fault that women feel threatened by men walking behind them alone at night, but I also know it's not their fault and I'm aware of the impact I could be having, so I take steps to mitigate it. That's the awareness that elevator guy didn't show.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think the argument being made (Euda can fell free to correct me) was that on it's own someone being apprehensive if a black person approached them doesn't automatically mean that the black person has to change their behaviour ... I think that possibly what I could have read from some of the posts here i.e. women apprehensive at male behaviour, therefore men must change. We all agree that's it's a bit more complicated than that and to me that's what Euda was pointing out.
You got it, finally, someone got it. I promised myself I wouldn't post, but I wanted to clear up this analogy that Custador and others in this thread continue to misunderstand. It has nothing to do with the "global" potential of rape, but the logic which you are using to condemn the behavior.
If someone's behavior is wrong merely because it makes someone uncomfortable, then you can extend this kind of logic to an entire arena of other instances. A person's behavior shouldn't be wrong MERELY because it makes someone uncomfortable, because all sorts of bullshit reasons can make people uncomfortable.
There's a massive difference between following a lone woman into an elevator at 4am and just talking to someone who happens to be the opposite race. Are you essentially saying that a black person should take responsibility for how a white person perceives them?
I can't believe you don't see the irony here. Are you saying a man should take responsibility for how a woman perceives them? Should black men also not ride in an elevator alone with someone at 4am because it may make them uncomfortable?
The next time I travel to a predominantly white area, should I regard any white person who approaches me as a potential lyncher or Steven Lawrence-esque racist?? I mean, "you can't argue that the fears are unfounded, because they are based on inference from the environment and history"...
Should every man be regarded as a potential rapist? In fact, since more than 3/4 of rapes happen by someone that the woman knows, should she regard all friends and acquaintances as potential rapists? If yes, then we must regard every poor black man as a potential criminal as well. If yes, then you are absolutely justified in regarding any white person who approaches you as a potential lyncher or racist.
.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@ Jabster: I understood Eudamonist's point, and as far as race issues go I agree. But we're not talking about a race issue. It's not relevant to the point that Elevator Dude should have bloody well known better, and Watson was right to be creeped out by him.
I don't see the difference between gender issues and race issues in this instance. Both are qualities that the individual cannot help, and both seem to incriminate them with some people before they even act. Take the same instance that happened with Elevator Guy but make him a poor black man in Stockton. He gets on an elevator at 4 AM in a hotel lobby and asks someone who he is alone with for money. Is he in the wrong because he didn't take steps to mitigate the other person's fears?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Is he armed? Or a lot larger and much, much physically stronger? And does he live in a society where very large, very strong black guys make up 50% of the population, exercise huge privilege, and violently assault one in six of the rest of the population? Because if not, your metaphor falls on its arse.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mark the Pilgrim
Member@blotonthelandscape:
Sorry, I misread it as you referring to two different scenarios: one referring to SA 10 years ago and the other referring to a blanket apprehension. I see your point a bit more clearly now.@Eudaimonist:
You didn't read it correctly. I have maintained that it is always about context. The post was a criticism of the race analogies that were posited. It was addressed to blotonthelandscape who later clarified his point."I can't believe you don't see the irony here. Are you saying a man should take responsibility for how a woman perceives them? Should black men also not ride in an elevator alone with someone at 4am because it may make them uncomfortable?
I'll reiterate: "It's all about context". With regards to whether a man, or anyone for that matter, should take responsibility for how a woman perceives them, it all depends on the context. Like I said, there's a big difference between a man following a lone woman into an elevator and asking her back to his place for coffee and a scenario involving a black person merely speaking to a white person. The former scenario allegedly involved a man cornering a female in an elevator whilst she was alone and then hitting on her. It is a cramped setting, it's late at night and she's alone with an aroused male. Anything could have happened. The latter scenario which I was referring to in my original post makes no reference to the setting, time and context of the situation.
However, Blotonthelandscape kindly clarified his position: it was a highly tense situation that could be described as a race war/conflict in South Africa. I can understand the apprehension a white South African would face if approached by a Zulu in a predominantly Zulu area whereby Zulus have been known to attack whites. Perhaps if I were a poor Zulu I might be very self-conscious about the manner in which I was to approach an outsider. Now in the scenario that you posit: if a black man were to get on an elevator at 4am in the morning and ask for money, then yes, I can understand the apprehension from anyone (although I would argue two points: a) it would still depend on his body language, clothing, etc - although for the sake of brevity I'll ignore those considerations and b) I don't think anyone should be begging a lone person for money at 4am - but that prohibition should be independent of race or gender). Not because he's a black man, but because he's cornered someone who is alone and is begging them.
Should every man be regarded as a potential rapist? In fact, since more than 3/4 of rapes happen by someone that the woman knows, should she regard all friends and acquaintances as potential rapists? If yes, then we must regard every poor black man as a potential criminal as well. If yes, then you are absolutely justified in regarding any white person who approaches you as a potential lyncher or racist.
My point which you quoted was intentionally sarcastic. I was criticising the flaws in blot’s analogy. Let’s put it this way: it is unfair for someone to have to apologise for their race or gender, as they can’t change it and they are not inherently negative by themselves. However, their behaviour is something that they can change and it is something that can have a negative impact. Being poor and black or being white does not always necessitate a reasonable fear in someone else unless the behaviour suggests something.
So again, it's the manner and context in which one approaches another rather than his gender or race. So in the case of Watson, the male who approached her wasn't wrong merely because he was a male approaching a woman, instead, he was wrong because he approached the woman in an unacceptable manner that threatened her in that particular context. He should have been aware that his behaviour could have invoked fear in a woman in that situation. So if I were to get into an elevator with a white person at 4am and mind my own business, then I would feel insulted if a white person were to be afraid of me. His fear would be based on a stereotype. However, if I come in dressed as a hoodlum and I aggresively approach them, then I would be wrong.
I repeat: it’s contextual.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I am way, way late to the party as I've had other pressing stuff going on, but...
If some dude approaches me in a parking lot, I get scared out of my mind. If I have a flat tire out in the boondocks away from the city, I get scared out of my mind. If I'm walking down the street and it's a quiet street and a guy approaches me, I get scared out of my mind. If I was trapped in an elevator late at night in a foreign country with some guy I didn't know making advances at me, I'd be scared out of my mind.
You see, when I was about 20, a stranger broke into my apartment and tried to rape me in my own bed.
There will never ever EVER be a time throughout the rest of my life that being alone somewhere with a strange guy won't frighten me out of my mind.
You men are lucky to not have to live with that. Just sayin'.
That being said, I understand the intellectual concerns going on here, but my concerns aren't intellectual... they are visceral.
And, yes, men ought to be more sensitive to the fact that most women are scared of unknown men in ambiguous situations. To not be sensitive to that fact is to deny the rampant rape problem in our and just about every other culture.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Is he armed? Or a lot larger and much, much physically stronger? And does he live in a society where very large, very strong black guys make up 50% of the population, exercise huge privilege, and violently assault one in six of the rest of the population? Because if not, your metaphor falls on its arse.
I'm not arguing that either Watson or the person alone in an elevator with a poor black man are unjustified in their apprehension at the situation, I'm arguing that their apprehension at the situation doesn't necessarily make the person who caused that apprehension a wrongdoer. This is what Jabster was helping me articulate, and what I reiterated with my last post.
So again, it's the manner and context in which one approaches another rather than his gender or race. So in the case of Watson, the male who approached her wasn't wrong merely because he was a male approaching a woman, instead, he was wrong because he approached the woman in an unacceptable manner that threatened her in that particular context. He should have been aware that his behaviour could have invoked fear in a woman in that situation. So if I were to get into an elevator with a white person at 4am and mind my own business, then I would feel insulted if a white person were to be afraid of me. His fear would be based on a stereotype. However, if I come in dressed as a hoodlum and I aggresively approach them, then I would be wrong.
First, let me say that there are plenty of white people who would be afraid of a black person getting in an elevator at 4 AM. They are completely unjustified, but does the fact that they get uncomfortable around it by itself make you in the wrong? You seem to be agreeing with me that it does not.
I think this is where the crux of my disagreement lies: " instead, he was wrong because he approached the woman in an unacceptable manner that threatened her in that particular context." While I completely understand that she FELT threatened, I sincerely doubt that his intentions were to invoke fear. In fact, they seem to be pretty clear that he just wanted to get laid (maybe having a pre-sex cup of coffee).
I understand that she felt threatened by this and I'm not trying to say she wasn't justified. What I am saying is unless this guy had the intention of trying to threaten her in order to get her to sleep with him, then he didn't do anything wrong. Some people are arguing that he tried to "corner" her in an elevator in an attempt to scare her into compliance, which seems like a huge stretch considering the information that Watson gave regarding the incident.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I agree, that's a huge stretch. I don't think Elevator Guy was malicious, I just think he was an idiot. The theme that stands out from your last post, for me, is that you differentiate between those who are justifiably afraid and those who are unjustifiably afraid. I think that's an important distinction.
Posted 1 year ago # -
blotonthelandscape
MemberThanks LRA for participating. Better late than never :) Men struggle for visceral context, which is why we have to come up with half-baked analogies. I still think Greg Ladens "rabid dog" analogy is best, but it's still not the same. Not that I'm complaining about the lack of experience men have with being raped, but given the feedback from women we have to try and come to terms with it intellectually, as ultimately it's our behaviour that has to be modified.
This issue is about privilege and self-awareness. It's gone beyond "how to proposition a woman and not come off creepy". If you defend Elevator Guy, what you are defending is his right to lack self-awareness, or his privilege to be immune from criticism for lacking self-awareness. You are also giving the impression that you lack self-awareness, or wish to cling to privilege.
Socially responsible people are self-aware. Equality eradicates privilege.
I think it's been discussed quite thoroughly that the intentions of the man are irrelevant, given that the women cannot know his intentions. See the blog post entitled "Schrodingers Rapist", linked to from PZ's last post on the subject.
How does a woman determine if fear is unjustifiable? Given "1 in 6", and the fact that knowing the person in no way guarantees safety, I would say there are few reliable signals a man can send to let a woman know he's safe in any circumstances and whatever his intentions. Patience? Openness? In spite of anything, the woman is still taking a risk, and in her mind is justified to consider us a potential threat.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"This issue is about privilege and self-awareness. It's gone beyond "how to proposition a woman and not come off creepy". If you defend Elevator Guy, what you are defending is his right to lack self-awareness, or his privilege to be immune from criticism for lacking self-awareness. You are also giving the impression that you lack self-awareness, or wish to cling to privilege."
+1
Posted 1 year ago # -
"If you defend Elevator Guy, what you are defending is his right to lack self-awareness, or his privilege to be immune from criticism for lacking self-awareness. You are also giving the impression that you lack self-awareness, or wish to cling to privilege."
Ahem.
I would defend the right to lack self-awareness about the impression one leaves on another person. I would even defend the right to be intentionally rude or insensitive. Dunno why my defense of those actions would be so troublesome for you that you'd be forced to insinuate that I'm a bigoted moron, but whatever.
One thing I definitely don't think I agree with is the other side of your dichotomy; I wouldn't defend anyone's privilege to be immune from criticism. This is just a basic (though sometimes implicit) tenet of freedom of speech and action in our culture, and I've heard it bandied about hear as well as elsewhere. No one has a right to *not be offended*. Clearly being offended or frightened after being met with an ill-considered attempt at pick-up-artistry (regardless of the gender of anyone involved) is well within anyone's rights. Paradoxically, it is also well within someone's rights to blatantly ignore the discomfort of those around them.
Now, the drunken man in the elevator is likely an idiot. (Notice that I can say that no matter how he feels about it. Nifty!) But being an idiot, while frowned upon, is protected by our society in almost every realm imaginable. (Watch TV for fifteen minutes.) He's also likely to be highly insensitive. But if you think that's less protected than stupidity or even mere ignorance, then I would again encourage you to watch fifteen minutes of TV. Shockingly, we preserve people's rights to behave in non-criminal but highly offensive, uncomfortable, and insensitive ways--and we make no attempt to preserve people's right to live an un-offended, entirely comfortable life (because then "rights" don't really work out.)
Let's think about this in a different vein than rights, then. You would like to talk about privilege and self-awareness. Let me ask you what you mean by privilege, because it's important that we get that straight. Do you mean "by random chance, someone else's life is substantively different from yours, and happens to be better?" Or do you mean something closer to "there is an institutionalized structure that favors some random chances over others, going so far as to establish a status quo which heavily rewards the recipients of some random chances while heavily penalizing the recipients of others."
I don't particularly understand how a criticism of either kind of privilege actually matches up with what you say immediately afterwards: "I think it's been discussed quite thoroughly that the intentions of the man are irrelevant, given that the women cannot know his intentions." If it is "irrelevant" whether the man in the elevator is socially responsible or not, then what are we still talking about?
I think Elevator Girl was being totally reasonable to feel threatened. I don't think that's the issue. As (predominantly, Hi LRA!) men, we seem to be considerably less interested in whether the female is within her rights to feel threatened than we are interested in whether the male is within his rights to sometimes not bother doing everything in his power to avoid making every woman around him feel threatened. In other words, where does the responsibility actually lie? Clearly I'm within my rights to ask someone for sex; clearly someone else is within their rights to be offended or threatened by it, no matter how innocently posed on my part. That's not the issue. The issue, as far as I can make out, is if either of the two parties should change anything about what they just did.
Now elevator man should be less stupid, sure, but is that really the only change we're talking about? Because if the change is: don't be an idiot, stupid-head, then we're not talking about any kind of sweeping social change. We're not talking about equality. We're talking about one moron. We've got lots more. Both people did something well within their rights, with their primary concern being their own respective interests. (That is, I presume Elevator Girl's reaction was not motivated *altruistically.*) What is so bad about that?
Posted 1 year ago # -
FO
Member@JonJon: I think none is arguing that it should be *illegal*.
I do have the legal right to be an asshole.
And it is legal to (subtly) threaten or scare people, as bad as it is.
What society will ALLOW me and what it EXPECTS from me are two very different things.I didn't interpret Custy's use of 'right' in law terms.
Also, all the fuss was caused because Elevator Girl said "guys it's bad to do that" and got a lot of bad reactions.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@ JonJon:
I'll have a go at explaining "privilege".
We live in a world where, if you are white, male, straight or middle-class, you have an advantage over people who are not, in terms of things that it is socially acceptable for you to do, say and be. You automatically have the assumed right to disregard the feelings of those who are not not white, male, straight or middle-class. You are likely to be paid more, have access to more and better opportunities for advancement and be the beneficiary of discriminatory behaviour (conscious and unconscious). In the USA, this is all true for Christians over non-Christians, too.
In this case, Elevator Guy exercised his male privilege by being totally unaware (or uncaring) of the impact of his actions on a woman. I would argue that if you can't accept or understand that Rebecca had every right to call him out for being unaware of the impact of his actions (i.e. that he creeped her out), or if you really think he did nothing wrong (morally and ethically), then you are also exercising male privilege.
I happen to be white, male, straight and middle-class, by the way.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mark the Pilgrim
Member@Eudaimonist:
” First, let me say that there are plenty of white people who would be afraid of a black person getting in an elevator at 4 AM. They are completely unjustified, but does the fact that they get uncomfortable around it by itself make you in the wrong? You seem to be agreeing with me that it does not.”
No. I’m saying that I would be in the wrong only if my actual behaviour, rather than just a physical trait, was inappropriate enough to make someone fear me. So in other words, I wouldn’t be wrong by merely being in the elevator, but I would need to take a positive step that could be interpreted as a threat towards someone to result in me being in the wrong. So if the Elevator guy had merely got in the elevator with the female and had not said or done anything, then any fear that the woman might have had, whilst potentially understandable, wouldn’t mean the Elevator guy is in the wrong. However, as he took a positive step that could be interpreted as a threat, he was in the wrong.
” I think this is where the crux of my disagreement lies: " instead, he was wrong because he approached the woman in an unacceptable manner that threatened her in that particular context." While I completely understand that she FELT threatened, I sincerely doubt that his intentions were to invoke fear. In fact, they seem to be pretty clear that he just wanted to get laid (maybe having a pre-sex cup of coffee)
... What I am saying is unless this guy had the intention of trying to threaten her in order to get her to sleep with him, then he didn't do anything wrong.”I see your point, but I do not believe that one must have the intention to do something wrong in order for that person to be at fault. Elevator Guy probably meant no harm, but I would still place him in the wrong because inappropriate behaviour is unacceptable even if one does not intend it. For example, If I were to insult you in jest, but you did not know that I was joking or you did not appreciate the content of the jokes, I would still be in the wrong even without my intention to offend and I would feel obliged to offer an apology (although it might depend on the severity of the joke). Elevator Guy should have known better. The lady had every right to be offended and to expect better of him. Elevator Guy's intentions are irrelevant if the actual behaviour is inapppropriate.
@Custador:
In this case, Elevator Guy exercised his male privilege by being totally unaware (or uncaring) of the impact of his actions on a woman. I would argue that if you can't accept or understand that Rebecca had every right to call him out for being unaware of the impact of his actions (i.e. that he creeped her out), then you are also exercising male privilege.
This.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.